Image-guided percutaneous ablation is considered best in the treatment of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ablation is potentially curative, minimally invasive, and easily repeatable for recurrence. Ethanol injection used to be the standard in ablation. However, radiofrequency ablation has recently been the most prevailing ablation method for HCC. Many investigators have reported that radiofrequency ablation is superior to ethanol injection, from the viewpoints of treatment response, local tumor curativity, and overall survival. New-generation microwave ablation can create a larger ablation volume in a shorter time period. Further comparison studies are, however, mandatory between radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation, especially in terms of complications and long-term survival. Irreversible electroporation, which is a non-thermal ablation method that delivers short electric pulses to induce cell death due to apoptosis, requires further studies, especially in terms of long-term outcomes. It is considerably difficult to compare outcomes in ablation with those in surgical resection. However, radiofrequency ablation seems to be a satisfactory alternative to resection for HCC 3 cm or smaller in Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis. Furthermore, radiofrequency ablation may be a first-line treatment in HCC 2 cm or smaller in Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis. Various innovations would further improve outcomes in ablation. Training programs may be effective in providing an excellent opportunity to understand basic concepts and learn cardinal skills for successful ablation. Sophisticated ablation would be more than an adequate alternative of surgery for small- and possibly middle-sized HCC.

Background The efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted a multi-center randomized phase II study comparing a sequential HAIC-sorafenib regimen versus sorafenib alone as an initial therapy for HCC. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sequential HAIC with cisplatin followed by sorafenib (HAIC group, n = 35) or sorafenib alone (sorafenib group, n = 33) as an initial therapy. The primary endpoint was the one-year survival rate. Secondary endpoint included overall survival (OS), the 2-year survival rate, the time-to-progression (TTP), the objective response rate (ORR), the disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results For the primary endpoint, the one-year survival rates were 46% in the HAIC group and 58% in the sorafenib group. The median OS period was 10.0 months (95% CI, 7.0–18.8) in the HAIC group and 15.2 months (95% CI, 8.2–19.7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.86, P = 0.78). The median TTP, ORR and DCR in the HAIC group were 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.7–5.5), 14.3, and 45.7%, respectively, while those in the sorafenib group were 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.3–6.8), 9.1, and 45.5%, respectively. No unexpected adverse events related to HAIC or sorafenib were observed in either group. Conclusions Sequential HAIC with cisplatin and sorafenib does not improve the survival benefit, compared with sorafenib alone, when used as an initial therapy for advanced HCC. However, this study was underpowered in regard to its primary and secondary endpoints, so the results should be interpreted with caution. Trial registration UMIN ID 000006147, registration data: August 11, 2011.

Background/Aim Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment is recommended for unresechepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC) patients classified as Child‐Pugh A (CP‐A). This study aimed to elucidate the prognosis of patients treated with Atez/Bev, especially CP‐A and ‐B cases. Materials/methods From September 2020 to March 2022, 457 u‐HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev were enrolled (median age 74 years, male:female = 368:89, CP‐A:CP‐B = 427:30, Child‐Pugh score [CPS] 5:6:7:8:9 = 271:156:21:8:1). Therapeutic response was evaluated using RECIST ver.1.1. Clinical features and prognosis were retrospectively evaluated. Results There were no significant differences between CP‐A and ‐B patients in regard to best response (CR:PR:SD:PD = 16:91:194:81 vs. 0:7:13:8, p = 0.739; objective response rate/disease control rate = 28.0%/78.8% vs. 25.0%/71.4%). Analysis performed using inverse probability weighting adjustments of clinical factors other than those related to hepatic reserve function with a p value < 0.10 for comparisons between patients with CP‐A and ‐B showed that the progression‐free survival (PFS) rate for CP‐A cases was better (6‐/12‐/18‐month: 58.2%/36.1%/27.8% vs. 49.6%/8.7%/non‐estimable [NE], p < 0.001), as was overall survival (OS) rate (6‐/12‐/18‐month: 89.9%/71.7%/51.4% versus 63.6%/18.4%/NE; p < 0.001). Median PFS (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) for the CPS‐5 were 9.5 months/NE, and 5.1/14.0 months for the CPS‐6 (both p < 0.001). Furthermore, for modified albumin‐bilirubin grade (mALBI)‐1/2a/2b, mPFS was 9.4/8.5/5.3 months (p < 0.001) and mOS was NE/17.8/13.4 months (p < 0.001). Conclusion Better hepatic function, such as mALBI grade 1 or 2a are thought to indicate a better condition for obtaining sufficient prognosis with Atez/Bev treatment for u‐HCC patients, whereas for CP‐B patients, who mainly shown an mALBI grade of 2b or 3, Atez/Bev might have less therapeutic efficacy.

No abstract

Background: Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/bev) treatment has been developed for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), changes in hepatic function during therapy have yet to be reported.